Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Supreme Court of the United States (which is charged with adjudicating how the US Constitution is interpreted) reiterated in DC et. al. vs. Heller that restrictions on firearm possession by felons (among other restrictions cited in the ruling) were valid. You can see the links cited in the previous posts.
The job of the Supreme Court is not to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution is not written in a foreign language, and it is written in very basic statements that don't require interpretation. The Supreme Court's job is to ensure that any laws that are passed meet the criteria that is laid out in the Constitution and any amendments to said document.
The 2nd amendment says that all have the right to "keep and bear arms". It does not say that everyone has the right to own police or military style arms.
IMO all of the common "hunting" weapons meet the intent of the 2nd amendment. Military/police style weapons do not. They are all designed for maximum kill rate of any human target. THAT is not the intent of the 2nd amendment. Under today's thinking machine , and/or fully automatic, weapons are illegal to for private citizens to own without a special permit with good reason. So it should be with any other military/police designed weapons.
Congress could, and should, outlaw all military/police style for citizen's private ownership. Owing common "hunting" weapons is more than enough for any person of sane and sound mind to own for their personal use.
Wrong. Killing people is exactly what the second amendment is for. Do you really think you can overthrow a tyrannical government without shooting back at the people shooting at you?
It was created in the 1700s, then cities and towns didn't have Police Departments or Law Enforcement.
Is the right to own weapons necessary any longer?
I suspect this is not a real question based on a genuine desire to understand what the Founding Father's knew/meant, and most of us learned by reading the Federalist Papers during our education.
Still it is worth a few minutes to discuss such an important subject in case it will help make a difference to those who genuinely want to understand it's meaning.
The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or even personal self protection from criminals as is commonly believed. Sure self protection is the current day talking points, but more than anything, the 2nd Amendment is about preserving freedom if ever a tyrannical government runs amok.
Our constitutional republic is based upon the rule of law and our God given freedoms enshrined in our governing document, the Constitution.
If ever there was an attempt to end it, an armed citizenry is the only means to protect it & our freedom. Remember the 2nd Amendment protects all the others, as words on paper cannot survive without a means to protect/enforce it.
BTW - Even for those who want to discuss the more practical side of self protection, remember the saying, "the police are only minutes away, when seconds count".
Also never forget that police are under no legal demand to protect you. Sure it is their job to do so, but failure to act does not constitute a crime.
Furthermore, when martial law is declared or an impending natural disaster occurs, police and other EMS services are suspended.
Lastly, never forget that the means of summoning the police for assistance can be gone in the blink of an eye. So ultimately you and you alone are responsible for the protection of yourself and your loved ones.
The framers didn't provide for the 2nd Amendment to enforce local laws like the police do. They wisely provided it to insure that the people would have a last line of defense against an oppressive government. I pray that we never need it for that purpose, but I'm glad it's there.
Actually the 2nd Amendment was crafted in the context of providing for a "well regulated militia"...which in the early decades we relied upon for national defense (as opposed to a large s5anding military). The very poor performance of militia units in the War of 1812 revealed the fallacy of this approach. I don't think that the purpose of the militia was to provide a vehicle for rebellion against the government.
The founding fathers clearly specified a well regulated militia. That term refers to militia units that are regulated...ie have a formal command structure. Which is what mostly relied on then. If not the government, then who do you think they were envisioning doing the regulating? They clearly weren't referring to an every person for themself scenario as many modern day people seem to believe. Or are we just pretending that that wording was never inserted into the Second Amendment and that it gives everyone the right to own absolutely whatever weapon their heart desires?
Who do you think should do the regulating?
Last edited by robertbrianbush; 02-19-2018 at 09:30 AM..
The bad part is do you really believe that abolishing the second will do anything to fix the problem? Its a typical liberal feel good solution. Makes them feel good while doing nothing to address the underlying problem.
What broke in our system that creates these monsters? Is it the breakdown of the family structure? Is it the breakdown of religion? Is it lack of discipline in our schools? Is it too many negative movies and video games? Until you can answer those questions and more, any emotional knee jerk reaction does nothing to fix the problem and is more likely just to punish those who are totally law abiding citizens than those who cause the problem.
Here's my solution: Everyone between 18 and 65 is required to be part of the militia. As part they get annual training and then are REQUIRED to carry a firearm, ready to respond at a moments notice.
one down side of this is that all of our nut cases and criminals would have free military training. Not to mention we would all likely have to participate in foreign invasions that we do not agree with. The antiwar movements would get MUCH stronger.
not to mention that our criminals and nut jobs...at least those who have not yet been convicted or diagnosed...would then be under a legal mandate to buy a gun and get military training. And every time the cops went out on a call or conducted a traffic stop they would be dealing with someone who was armed and had military training. Every time absolutely anyone got angry they would have military training and have a gun ready at hand. Not sure I would want to live 8n that world. And should ordinary people be required to risk their lives to intervene every time a dangerous situation occurs near them?
Last edited by robertbrianbush; 02-19-2018 at 09:37 AM..
No. There is a reason why magazines hold more than 1 round. This too should be obvious.
But you said earlier that magazines can be swapped easily. So which is it?
I can change a 10, 20, or 30 round mag very quickly, and with very little time between shots. The bottom line is you'd want to ban all guns, all magazines, and all ammunition. That is the final solution for the totalitarians in this country.
It says right to bear arms (no exclusions). Can the average citizen afford a nuke?
Our govt is the only entity to ever use one, should it have them?
No exclusions, but no inclusions either.
If you can own a hand-gun, a shot-gun, and rifles that were designed for hunting animals, not humans, then the right is granted. There is no infringement of bearing arms, if you are allowed to bear arms.
I will grant you that maybe we should allow AR15's (for example) or maybe we shouldn't. But shutting down the discussion by a disingenuous statement like you made doesn't get us anywhere.
Also, the constitution has been amended over our history. The problem is that the pro-gun side is not willing to even discuss it, so they make distractions like the misleading statement you made above.
For the record, I am pro-gun, and I own handguns, rifles and shotguns, and don't plan to give them up. I am also of the mindset that this problem will benefit from open, honest discussion, but it has to be allowed in order to have a chance at succeeding.
We can do better, and we can do so without banning guns, nor granting nukes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
